Even Machiavelli recommended to control a conquered country by moving the capital to that county, or by sending a colony of his own countrymen to that country to easier control it.

And to conquer a country, Machiavelli always recommended to be invited by an unhappy minority. Because the minority would always support the invader in the new country.
So a minority does not always have to be criminal, or violent to be threat to the hosting country. White minority or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyctc

MAINSTREAM media. You said it yourself. Obviously most people ("mainstream") don't support your ideas. Most people are anti's.

Mainstream in this case does mean the biggest and most wealthy media. They are owned by a small homogeneous minority [even in my country: Czech Republic]. They stereotyping and spreading shameless lies about us. This attributes strongly to why most white people are antis or don't care.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyctc

There are SO many white anti's out there....

Se above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyctc

Good point. But once you buy a product you think you like (because of advertising) and have actually tried it out and find out it is not good, you won't like it.

Thatĺs why we have such a big influx of WN's despite the massive anti-propaganda.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyctc

How do "racial groups" compete? You mentioned land. Individual white people compete for land. There would be competition for land and food and jobs even without non-whites. You get my point right? Unless there wasn't enough food or land. but that is not the case in England is it? (It certainly isn't the case in Canada or the US).

In the animal world species compete even without direct confrontation, or even without even seeing each other! It depends how they are able to adapt to the environment they live in. So more adapted species [in this case species that compete with each other] survive and the less adapted don't.
Being more adapted means in Neo-Darwinism having more children than the competing group. Thatĺs in the animal world.
In the human world war is not always, but often a way to compete, so not only having children is important but also: creativity, intelligence and cohesiveness to the group.
And yes there is competition between for example: Mammals and lizards [witch mammals mostly won and are wining], Mammal carnivore species and other mammal carnivore species, races within the species, and between individuals in the races.
Modern humans and Neanderthalĺs for example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyctc

I am agreeing with you that most people will socialize with their own race, therefore race-mixing should not be a concern.. not such a huge concern that it would lead to the extinction of the white race, like most WN's believe.

You underestimate this. There will be always someone ho will mix. The problem about this is, that the mixed outcome can mix with another white until the product has such a big white appearance, that it can confuse even a good WN who can mate with it and this can repeat for so long, until our race will have a total different appearance than the original. That's why I have a problem with it.
Look at much South America [Mexico].

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyctc

It says the white population has remained static, which means you're not losing people and won't be extinct, like so many WN's claim.

See above. And if we are not are a minority, then the 'new' majority can elect its own government and make laws that resemble their own cultural interestĺs or abandon democracy as a whole. In our ancestral country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyctc

So, I ask again... how are you being bred out?

Three reasons above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyctc

Not if everyone already likes it and agrees with it.

Not everyone. We are WN's, forgotten? And a big part of WN movement's is to convince our people that this is not something to agree with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyctc

What are your leaderĺs reasons for immigration, if you say most people don't want it?

In my country {Czech Republic} it's the low birth rate, but instead of tiring to raise it, they choose immigration. Maybe it takes more than liberalism or ZOG.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyctc

Good point. But you'd be moving a lot more people than that, to achieve separate regions for different races.

Yes, but those are between gangs of "bad" people anyway. And they are not so common that there is a need to racially segregate the nations or re-locate people.

In general everyone in Canada gets along fine. It makes no sense to segregate the hundred of thousands of regular everyday good Chinese and good whites and good Indians who are bakers, bankers, sweepers, doctos, grocers.....

Those gansters would be gangsters even if they were living in a nation where everyone looked like them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Š■eling

I have never heard of any, but then the Chinese are not resident in large numbers, and they tend to be more spread out.

Ok.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Š■eling

Up to a point. There is a world of difference between a few thousand non-whites that most white people do not come into contact with, and a few million non-whites who have established effective colonies in many of Britainĺs inner cities.

Yes, I agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Š■eling

What you believe that the media is some sort of socialist organisation that courts the opinions of the viewers? I think you are clutching at straws here. I don't believe Rupert Murdoch holds opinion polls on what he chooses to show on TV. The public have no control in Britain over what is shown on TV, that is why there is quite a wide campaign to scrap the license.

If there really were enough WN's in England, someone would have started a TV station (or show) on WN and land it right at Prime Time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Š■eling

No groups of people compete for land; you cannot have a state/tribe/nation of one person.

My point is, people compete for land anyway, whether they all look the same of look different. Unless there isn't enough room.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Š■eling

Your right there would be, one look at the UK with the political arm wrestling between Scots and English, not to mention the historical territorial wars between these two racially identical and culturally similar peoples shows that.

There would be competition for land even without white Scots in England... even if there was only English in England... unless there isn't enough land.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Š■eling

Now how greater is that tension going to be between racially and culturally alien peoples?

Obviously it doesn't matter whether people look like each other or not... conflicts occur because of historical events like one group conquering another (English vs. Scots, and Ireland, between England and French, or Japan and America in WW2, etc).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Š■eling

Miscegenation is not the threat, more fertile races are.

Ok, so miscegenation is not the threat. How are the more fertile races "a threat"?

You say:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Š■eling

Obviously logic says that if the non-white population is increasing then it has to be at the expense of the white population. Britain is a finite land with finite resources, and that is assuming the white population remains static, which is not likely:

It says that British women have on average two children, that is just replacement level, it also says, clearly that whites will be a minority in Britain by 2100.

Yes, I can see that whites will be a minority by 2100.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Š■eling

Everyone does not.

And why not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Š■eling

I have already mentioned harassment of parties that do not support egalitarianism, multiracialism, or globalisation.

If there were really that many WN-like people in the UK, that wouldn't happen.

Some do, but most people are apathetic and have lost faith in politics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Š■eling

Well letĺs think about it.

There is pretty much not a week that goes by without a hospital ward, or an entire hospital, closing in Britain, a run down school fund raising because they cannot acquire state funds, the army in Iraq has shoddy equipment, whilst back in Britain soldiers are forced to shout bang to cut down on expense on exercises. The council where I live has been forced to stop meals on wheels for the elderly, no money.

I am talking about resources to support a population. But anyways, why is there not enough money to fund these hospitals and schools, and equipment for the army.....?

And how does that relate to immigration?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Š■eling

At the same time the same council has done up a derelict block of flats for asylum seekers, we are told that it is Britainĺs duty to take in refugees.

Who heads the council? Is it a white? (I'm just trying to understand the situation there).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Š■eling

The Indian community has plenty of funding for Diwali,

And how come THEY have the money?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Š■eling

but the council is less than forth coming for Christmas lights, again no money.

Ok...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Š■eling

Meanwhile our government can spend money fighting a stupid war in Afghanistan, and Iraq, but it cannot release enough to rebuild Britainĺs creaking infrastructure, which is not helped by mass immigration.

So if immigration was managed more properly so that everyone has hospitals and schools etc etc, are you ok with it (immigration)?

If your answer is "no", then I don't see the point of you mentioning all this (land, resources etc).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Š■eling

The only conclusions can be that either Britain is strapped for cash, or the government has very different priorities to the British public.

What would you do if you were the leader (or had a say) to solve the cash problem?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Š■eling

The economy.

Incidentally this is shown to be a nonsense argument in these articles here:

ôThe populations of France, Britain and Spain are set to continue to grow by between 4.0 and 4.4 percent until 2020.
But since the late 1990s, Britain, Europe's third largest country, has relied on immigration to keep its population growingö

Painting Jews with a broad brush is as much an error as we being painted by the same broad brush. Therefore, you see no validity to any of the anti-Israel or anti-Jewish arguments? Is David Duke in error by pointing out a Jewish supremacy belief among Jews?
Does the media seem more pro-Israel and are the events in the Middle East being reported without a bias?

Jews do regard themselves as God's chosen people, true. Then again, so do the Nation of Islam. Plus there is a supremacy belief amongst whites here, with a frightful amount of evidence to back it up, I hasten to add!

1) We are all trailer trash.
2) We are all inbreds.
3) We are all ignorant.
4) We are all unemployed.
5) We are all fascist Nazi bastards.
6) We all hate Jews without cause.
7) We are all jealous of Jews and Blacks. Jews for their brains and money, and blacks for their well...I think we can all get the drift.
8) We all think we are superior to all other races.
9) We all have tattoos and piercings.
10) We are all cowards.

What offensive garbage. You have actually outlined your boundless hatred for White people in all these bogus Judeo-hate points. No true WN would post such hateful trash, but you are a sill little troll! One of those who, please note, will employ the pet joo terminology such as "caucasian" even to the point of not using the capitalization while his beloved groids gets the big B....
So, just get lost, boy!

Iĺm not interested in making sweeping generalizations about every single white nationalist. The biggest flaw I see in the white nationalist movement is your position of separation (for the US at least). I just donĺt think itĺs a possibility. I canĺt imagine how you would go about achieving separation outside of revolution, which would probably consist of violence and I canĺt support that tho I do support you having a white nation (itĺs only fair even tho itĺs probably not doable). So, in my eyes, your energies could be better put to use else where.

Prior to WW2 ,66% of Poland's population was Polish, while the balance was composed of various non-Polish nationalities, mostly Jews and Germans. After the war, it became 98% Polish. So nothing is set in stone, though no one can say what the future will bring.
It seems to me that you do not have a problem with WN per se, only its practicality in the US. Well, is it a very difficult problem? Yes it certainly is. However it is not written anywhere that this will be a quick journey, it could take centuries.
Just halting NW immigration and race-mixing would buy us endless time. Raisng our birthrates and than simply refusing to subsidize the Non-Whites will eventually convince many of them that they are better off in their native lands.
Not reperarations, but subsidized repatriation is another tool. Given the several hundred billions we are compelled to expend on subsidizing health, education and welfare for Non-Whites, such programs could easily be financed from the savings realized
Further, promoting WHITE immigration, which is after all how we got here in the first place, is yet another approach.
But will revolution be required? Bluntly, in some manner or another ,yes, but the extent to which we inform and educate our people will determine the extent to which a bloodbath can be avoided.

Location: The Weary in spirit cannot withstand fate, and nothing comes of venting spleen; wherefore those eager for glory often hold some ache imprisoned in their hearts.

Posts: 6,183

Re: Question to anti's: What is the greatest flaw you see in WN.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonyctc
These are conflicts between people who are, according to WN's in general, the "same race".

Not in all cases the USSR was multiracial, but you have pretty much proven my point with that statement. If people of the same race with, in some cases, minor cultural differences find it difficult to live together it does not bode well for the multiracial experiment unfolding in Europe and America.

Quote:

I can name many more examples of nations where people of different races are living together fine.

Then do so.

Quote:

You got any "better" examples?

Define better?

How about the genocide of the American Indian, deliberate and otherwise, genocide is not always purposeful. In some cases though, such as the Indians of the Great Lakes, Europeans introduced small pox deliberately to drive away the Indians from the land. Indians in the Caribbean were also hunted down.

Quote:

Yes, but I doubt that there would be anything that would lead to outright war between races.

And as you said yourself nations with a multiracial policy are already racially segregated by choice. So what does that tell you?

Quote:

It makes no sense to segregate the hundred of thousands of regular everyday good Chinese and good whites and good Indians who are bakers, bankers, sweepers, doctos, grocers.....

People are not economic units tony, they have racial and ethnic loyalties. All because people are not burning down houses and smashing up stores does not mean that everyone is getting along fine. Britain has been called a parallel society for the fact that whites and Asians, whether they are grocery store owners, or gang leaders, tend to avoid each other where possible.

Quote:

If there really were enough WN's in England, someone would have started a TV station (or show) on WN and land it right at Prime Time.

Who is going to pay for it?

Who is going to risk their career by airing it?

This is why the BNP have their own internet TV. It is cheap and we don’t need to ring Mr Murdoch or Lord Ryder for airtime.

Quote:

My point is, people compete for land anyway, whether they all look the same of look different. Unless there isn't enough room.

You’re winning my argument for me.

Again how much more extreme is the competition going to be between people who share no racial or cultural bonds? Bernard Manning was quite correct, in a crude way, when he said that the easiest way to make the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland get along would be to drop a thousand Asians into the middle of Belfast. Obviously this is not going to happen, but the Irish would suddenly see how much they have in common when faced with an alien people.

Quote:

There would be competition for land even without white Scots in England... even if there was only English in England... unless there isn't enough land.

There have been land disputes between the landed aristocracy and their tenants for centuries, Ireland is a good example of the English colonials ordering the Irish off their land.

Again how much greater are these tensions when the people involved are far different racially? Remember up until mass-immigration most people in Britain whether Lords or peasants were loyal to the state and had at the very least an awareness of shared heritage, this is not the case now.

Quote:

Obviously it doesn't matter whether people look like each other or not... conflicts occur because of historical events like one group conquering another (English vs. Scots, and Ireland, between England and French, or Japan and America in WW2, etc).

I think your clutching at straws; race riots prove that looks matter for a great deal. Look at the riots in Australia where anyone who was brown got a good kicking. There was a Sikh in Copenhagen assaulted after 9/11 for the reason he was brown and mistaken for a Muslim.

Quote:

Now, if the white population is declining (because whites are not having children) then here IS land for everyone. Land right? You mentioned land first.

You are getting desperate.

Remember what I also said?? Multiracialism breaks down social cohesion, loss of social cohesion leads to loss of governance, this leads to state collapse.

Quote:

If the white population remains static, then there is no concern about the white population declining.

It is not remaining static. You did read the links?

Quote:

And why not?

We have just been discussing the reasons.

Quote:

If there were really that many WN-like people in the UK, that wouldn't happen.

That is a silly statement to make.

How many Nazi’s did it take to gain power in Germany and then drive all opposition parties out of existence?

Quote:

I am talking about resources to support a population.

How do you think a state supports infrastructure? Come on tony you’re smarter than this.

Quote:

But anyways, why is there not enough money to fund these hospitals and schools, and equipment for the army.....?

That is the point I am making, which is it lack of cash, and if so why? Or is it government priorities?

Quote:

And how does that relate to immigration?

If we can afford to sustain immigrant populations, and non-working asylum seekers, but we don’t have the money to fund basics like hospitals and schools, don’t you think there is a very big question hanging there??

So if immigration was managed more properly so that everyone has hospitals and schools etc etc, are you ok with it (immigration)?

No.

England for the English, remember?

Quote:

If your answer is "no", then I don't see the point of you mentioning all this (land, resources etc).

Which part of multiracialism leads to a breakdown of social cohesion, is slipping past you?

Quote:

What would you do if you were the leader (or had a say) to solve the cash problem?

End immigration, and restore social cohesion is the first priority, no point having an economy if you have no state to support it. Second remove ourselves from the EU, third re-introduce tariffs to protect British workers and jobs, fourth expand existing industries, such as aerospace, fifth regain a measure of self-sufficiency in this case mining ores and minerals, which Britain still retains high levels of.

Quote:

Er.... Britain....?

But 75% of Britons are against immigration, again who is doing the volunteering?

Quote:

Yes. Make more white babies... then no immigrants are needed to keep the population growing.

Good answer.

Quote:

Are you telling your women (and men) that? That is the ROOT of the problem, isn't it?

It is part of the problem; the rest is again more fertile races in the same territory as our own race. Population decline, on its own, is not a grave cause of concern, but add that to more fertile races then you have a problem.

Quote:

æþeling, if white people are not having children, then cutting off immigration will not help that.

No it wont, but again it will end the non-white colonisation of Britain.

These are conflicts between people who are, according to WN's in general, the "same race". Tony

Quote:

Originally Posted by Š■eling

Not in all cases the USSR was multiracial, but you have pretty much proven my point with that statement. If people of the same race with, in some cases, minor cultural differences find it difficult to live together it does not bode well for the multiracial experiment unfolding in Europe and America.

Don't forget that the conflict in Sri-Lanka is between Australoids from south India and Mongoloids. It's a competition for land strictly between races.

In Bangladesh its between Indian Caucasoids {Tamils} and Mongoloids in the very east.

And don't forget Sudan!! The conflict there is strictly between local Caucasoids and Negroids, even if they are both Muslim.
It's a competition between races for land. The Negroids are driven out of Sudan, its not a particular tribe of them, it's all Negroes.

Hatred. Intolerance. Close Mindedness. Disrespectful. Those are the flaws.

I personally dont care what color someone is. All I care about is if they are a respectful and responsible human being or not. As long as people take responsibility for their themselves, their family and their community as well as treat one another with respect they are ok in my book.

My anger is clearly focused on the two biggest reason America has turned to ****. The government and corporations. It aint races that had turned America into **** folks.

This was a responce to what I considered actaully a more impressive anti-started thread. Don't say it's very rare that this happens. It happens more than you are willing to admit. You don't realize this pushes people against your cause. It does make people feel like you're 'haters', which is hardly a positive label for a cause that many feel so strongly about.